THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS--WHAT IS IT AND WHAT IS IT NOT?

The Moral Responsibility of Business

Some time ago, we were presented with a real drama in the States of Indiana and Arkansas, as legislation was adopted and then quickly reversed which proposed to give license to business organizations to refuse service based on their religious principles to gays and lesbians.  A broad array of business and business leaders objected to this, including the nine leading businesses in Indiana, WalMart, Apple, and many others.  New legislation was quickly introduced (and that in Arkansas modified) to explicitly indicate that this “religious freedom” legislation could not be used to discriminate against marriage preference. 

This is a very tricky area.  To what extent do businesses have the right and indeed the obligation to voice their position on moral or ethical grounds to sway public policy?  How does business strike the right balance between its values and abiding with an existing social policy, imbedded in law and perhaps embraced by a large percentage of the population, including its employees or customers?

Getting down to cases, as CEO in 1995, I reached the position that Procter & Gamble should provide equal benefits to individuals who are in a codified same-sex partnership.  We did this at a time when the majority of Ohioans opposed same-sex marriage.  We were not taking a position that these individuals were wrong in their belief.  We were taking the position that the same-sex partnership as it was codified made it right in the name of fairness to accord our employees in such a partnership the same benefits as a married couple.  It proved fairly controversial, but I believed it was right to do.  We were not making a moral pronouncement on same-sex marriage at this time.  We were saying that in the name of fairness there was no reason to deny individuals in this relationship same-sex benefits.

A related issue being discussed here relates to the “personhood” of a corporation.  Is a corporation a “person” or not? 

Many, perhaps most, would say, no, a corporation is not a “person.”  As one columnist said, a corporation won’t be a “person” until it is capable of being executed in the State of Texas. 

Where do I stand on this issue?  It depends on what you mean by “person.”

I would say that business has a “responsibility” as part of society to advance positions that are consistent with what as a corporate body (leaders, board of directors, best understanding of shareholders) represent correct and moral values.  I say this because I believe corporations have a major role to play in forming the cultural and value-based character of a society.  I do believe that corporations need to be humble and circumspect in taking on an issue.  They have to recognize the practical need to balance the interests of those it serves -- its consumers, employees, shareholders and the community. 

In other words, if a corporation took on a value-based position that would destroy its business, it would end up serving no one in the future.  Would there ever be occasions where it would have to go this far, to almost literally have to go out of business?  Yes, if its being in business meant threatening the life of consumers or anyone else.

When I say a corporation must be circumspect and humble, I mean that it must avoid becoming sanctimonious or in any way believing that it has a role of being a priest or prophet in its times.  It must speak judicially, though sometimes bravely, and it must avoid failing to do the good it can do at a given point in time because it cannot achieve perfection. 

Take the situation of Procter & Gamble in Saudi Arabia many years ago.  There was a social mandate that men and women could not work together in the same office.  P&G might have, given its commitment to gender equality, said that it would not do business in Saudi Arabia at all.  Or, I guess it could have taken the position it would violate the laws, though that would not have lasted long.  What did we do?  We set up separate office locations where women would work and where men would work and they would communicate between the two offices.  We did this on market research work.  We also pushed to change the social norms and the laws.  We felt that was right to do, not only morally; we knew it would be better for the business to have people working together in that way.  We felt advancing gender equality was right for the business and right morally.  We kept advancing this goal.

This raises a question:  is the test for a company taking a position on a moral or social issue whether it is relevant to the success of the business itself in the long-term?  Put differently, should businesses only weigh in on social and moral issues that bear directly on having the right (and by “right” I include being morally correct) business and working environment long-term?  I think the answer is yes, but I’d underscore the importance of taking a long-term view.  For example, I believe the commitment to achieve a sustainable environment is one that businesses should advocate, even beyond the immediate benefit of that for the business itself.   Why?  Because I believe businesses should understand that having a world in which they or any other business could operate long-term requires a sustainable environment.

I believe that a business has social and moral obligations that go beyond simply making money in any short- or medium-term measurable sense.

At the same time, I believe its judgments and pronouncements must be measured and put in the context of a business’s doing what is right and fair for its employees, its shareholders and its consumers, recognizing there will always be different points of view on what is right and fair.  While always seeking to do the “right” thing.  It must avoid being self-righteous or over-extending its role in advocating for what it sees as the common good.

THE ULTIMATE GAP STEMMING FROM INCOME INEQUALITY: "LIFE ITSELF"

The Ultimate Gap Stemming From Income Inequality:  Life Itself

The article by Sabrina Tavernise in the Saturday, February 13, edition of The New York Times, “LIFE SPANS OF THE RICH AND POOR” demonstrates in a horrifyingly compelling way yet another dimension in which income inequality impacts people’s lives—the very length of their lives.

In the early 1970s, a 60-year-old man in the top half of the earnings ladder could expect to live 1.2 years longer than a man of the same age in the bottom half.  Fast-forward to 2001 and he could expect to live 5.8 years longer than his poorer counterpart. 

New research released this month contains even more jarring data.  Looking at the extreme ends of the income spectrum, economists at the Brookings Institution found that for men born in 1920 there was a six-year difference in life expectancy between the top 10% of earners and the bottom 10%.  For men born in 1950, that difference had more than doubled to 14 years.  For women, the gap grew to 13 years from 4.7 years.

Why?  The report sees different smoking habits accounting for perhaps a third of the gap.  Some of the difference could be attributed to somewhat higher obesity.  But an enormous part is attributed to the availability of health care support in all its dimensions.

Here is another data point.  For men born in 1950, life expectancy is about 73 years, for the poorest 10%.  For the highest 10%, it is about 87 years.  Women are somewhat higher; about age 76 for the poorest 10% and about age 88 for the highest 10%.

Think of that.  A decade more of life for the highest income versus the lowest.  It makes you think about what we can do to at least provide people with the opportunity to escape poverty.  Which inevitably brings you back to education and development and health, starting from the earliest years, 0-5, including quality Pre-K.

'WHEN BREATH BECOMES AIR"

I finished reading one of the most mind-opening, emotionally moving books that I have ever read:  “When Breath Becomes Air” by Paul Kalanithi.  Kalanithi graduated from Stanford University with a B.A. and M.A. in English Literature.  He went on to earn a Master’s Degree in History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine from the University of Cambridge and graduated cum laude from the Yale School of Medicine.

He returned to Stanford to complete his residency training in neurological surgery.  At the age of 36, on the verge of completing a decade’s worth of training as a neurosurgeon, he was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer.

This magnificent book tells the story of his practice as a doctor treating the dying which flowed to the story of him as a patient struggling to live.  He died in March 2015 while working on this book.  His wife completed it.

I have never read a book which brings to life in anything so graphic way the incredible intricacy of operating on the human brain and the miracle that the brain represents.

There are too many phrases and thoughts in this book to try to summarize it in any way that could be satisfactory.  Yet, there were many thoughts that I resonated to so closely based on my own experiences that I cannot fail to record them for future reference.

“Part of the cruelty of cancer, though, is not only that it limits your time; it also limits your energy, vastly reducing the amount you can squeeze into a day.  It is a tired hare who now races, and even if I had the energy, I’d prefer a more tortoise-like approach.  I plot.  I ponder.  Some days, I simply persist.  Languor settles in.  There is a feeling of openness.  Now the time of day means nothing, the day of the week scarcely more.”

“Doctor and patient, in a relationship that sometimes carries a magisterial air and other times, like now, was no more and no less, than two people huddled together, as one faces the abyss.  Doctors, it turns out, need hope, too.”

Kalanithi’s memoir leaves us staring starkly into the inevitability of death but equally indeed more so that life is precious and miraculous and needs to be lived in the moment.



Kalanithi’s perspectives on faith and religion mirror my own in many ways.  Like many of us, it is clear he had moments, many of them, of deep disbelief.  Moments when, like most scientific types, “(I) came to believe in the possibility of a material conception of reality, an ultimately scientific world view that would grant a complete metaphysics, minus out-moded concepts like souls, God, and bearded white men in robes.”  He acknowledged spending a lot of his 20s working to build a frame for such an endeavor but, as he eloquently writes, “the problem eventually became evident:  to make science the arbiter of metaphysics is to banish not only God from the world but also love, hate, meaning—to consider a world that is self-evidently not the world we live in.

Scientific methodology in the end is the product of human hands and thus cannot reach some permanent truth.”  This makes “scientific knowledge inapplicable to the existential, visceral nature of human life, which is unique and subjunctive and unpredictable.”  It is unable “to grasp the most central aspects of human life:  hope, fear, love, hate, beauty, envy, honor, weakness, striving, suffering, virtue.”

Like myself, Kalanithi returned to the “central values of Christianity—sacrifice, redemption, forgiveness—because I found them so compelling.”  The main message of Jesus, Kalanithi believed, as do I, is that “mercy trumps justice every time.”

Finally, I have resonated to Kalanithi’s rumination that “maybe the basic message of original sin is less an internal ‘feel guilty all the time'; maybe it is more along these lines:  ‘we all have a notion of what it means to be good and we can’t live up to it all the time.’”

So what is the aspiring metaphysician to do?, Kalanithi wonders, “give up?  Almost,” he replies.  But he goes on (we must) “struggle toward the Truth, but recognize that the task is impossible—or that if a correct answer is possible, verification certainly is impossible.  In the end, it cannot be doubted that each of us can see only part of the picture.  The doctor sees one, the patient another, the engineer a third, etc., etc.  Human knowledge is never contained in one person.  It grows from the relationships we create between each other and the world, and still is never complete.  And Truth comes somewhere above all of them where, as at the end of that Sunday’s reading, ‘the sober and reaper can rejoice together.’  For here the saying is verified that ‘one sows and another reaps.  I sent you to reap what you have not worked for; others have done the work and you are sharing the fruits of that work.’”

WHY I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING DONALD TRUMP DESPITE DISAGREEING WITH HIM

Why I Look Forward to Hearing Donald Trump Despite Disagreeing with Almost All of His Views and Detesting Many of Them

At the outset, I should recognize that Trump’s supporters want to watch him because they believe that the substance of what he is advocating is right.  While I don’t agree with him on the majority of issues, everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her opinion.

What I am addressing here is why I -- someone who disagrees with most of Trump’s positions and the way he presents them, in many cases strongly -- will almost always stop and watch Trump when I hear he is about to appear on television. 

There are several reasons.

One is I find myself in something of a state of “wonderment:”  what zany idea will he come up with next?  It’s a form of entertainment.

Second, I have to admit I take a certain “smug sense of satisfaction” from hearing him, believing that my views are much more rational and humane than his.

Third, and most dangerous, I gravitate to watching him because as wrong-headed as I find many of his views, there are some of his qualities that I admire.  What do I refer to?  His genuineness.  His candor.  His utter authenticity.  I’ve often said that I like to hear it said of someone that “what you see is what you get.”  One thing that is true about Trump:  “what you see is what you get.”  And we had better pay attention to that, the substance of what he is saying.   Because if we don’t like or agree with “what we see,” or “hear,” and in many respects we shouldn’t, we dare not elect this man.

I don’t know if the reasons I’ve given here are shared by others.  But there is a danger in them.  One is that they explain why Trump is getting so much free air -time. Media treasure high ratings.

On George Stephanopoulos’ “This Week” program on Sunday, he had live interviews with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  The one for Trump was not only 4-5 times longer than the other two, but the nature of the interview was different.  Trump controlled it totally.  Now, George Stephanopoulos is an outstanding interviewer, one of the very best.  But Trump just ran over him.  George found it virtually impossible to follow up on Trump’s avoidance of tough questions.  Trump just carried on with his own message, uninterruptable.

Trump’s message is a siren’s song, just as autocratic, super confident leaders have been in the past.  I’ve never seen anyone in this country who so controls an interview like Trump does.  So audacious.  We have heard about people who came close.  Father Coughlin.  Huey Long perhaps.  Decades ago. 

I’m confident that in the end the Republican Party will not nominate Donald Trump.  I believe his positions and temperament will come to be seen for what they are:  out of line with our nation’s values, intemperate, unbalanced, immature, even if some are rooted in genuine, legitimate concerns that people have about our nation and their personal lives.  But we better be careful.  There is no predicting what a Trump presidency would be, and that is the “best case.”   The “worst case” is that Trump’s presidency would be exactly what he says it would be.  Building walls, insisting that Mexico pay for them; stopping all Muslims from entering the country, thereby alienating the Muslim allies whom we need with us to combat terrorism; telling Apple to stop making computers in China.  Of course, none of these things would happen.  But the Government would be in chaos as he tried to make them happen. And we would be the laughing stock of the world.

Having said all this, I’m torn on this question of whether I – and people who feel as I do -- should keep watching Trump.  On the one hand, I say “no.”  We are giving him credit beyond his due and in doing so he gets more free air time.  On the other hand, I say -- and this is my final position – “yes,” let’s keep watching.  But in doing so, let’s have the media start to vigorously challenge the truth of what he is saying and the rightness of what he is saying.  Let’s stop giving him a free ride.  Let’s force the truth to emerge.

PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON--STRENGTHS AND BLIND SPOTS--BUT A DRIVING PURPOSE

JON MEACHAM’S “AMERICAN LION:  ANDREW JACKSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE”

 

Jon Meacham’s book brings alive as well as any biography I’ve ever read the reality that great men (and women), in this case Andrew Jackson, bring together great strengths and virtues with blind spots that as we see the world today make us cringe. For Jackson, those blind spots were slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. 

 

The book gave me a new appreciation of Jackson’s strength of character and how he held the Union together during the Nullification crisis of 1830-31 which came close to seeing South Carolina secede from the Union.  But he held it together.  And he fought the “good fight” for the small man as he battled the consolidated financial interests of the National Bank.  As Meacham says, Jackson “proved the principle that the character of the President matters enormously.”  

“Jackson had many faults,” said Theodore Roosevelt, “but he was devotedly attached to the Union and he had no thought of fear when it came to defending his country. The course I followed regarding the Executive is subject only to the people…it was substantially the course followed by both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.”  

 

“He wanted sincerely to look after the little fellow who had no pull and that is what a President is supposed to do,” Truman said of Jackson.

 

Meacham writes.  “The great often teach by their failures and derelictions.  The tragedy of Jackson’s life is that a man dedicated to freedom failed to see liberty as a universal, not a particular, gift.”  Meacham was, of course, referring here to Jackson’s repeated assault on Native Americans, abrogating treaty after treaty, pushing them west, feeling that, in my words, they were a breed apart.  He also refers to his support for the institution of slavery, being a slave owner himself, and fighting the abolitionists during the 1830s, including their fight against the Gag Rule in Congress.

 

“The triumph of (Jackson’s) life,” Meacham continues, “is that he held together a country whose experiment in liberty ultimately extended its protections and promises to all—belatedly, it is true, but by saving the Union, Jackson kept the possibility of progress alive, a possibility that would have died had secession and separation carried the day.”

In many ways, this commitment-- preserving the Union and finding a way to strengthen it -- is what has characterized the great leaders in Procter & Gamble’s history.  The intent has always been the same:  building on the strengths of the past, responding to the exigencies and opportunities of the present, not only adhering to our values but finding fuller way to live them, and, in all ways, seeking to make Procter & Gamble a more successful and vibrant institution in the future.

 

 

PRESERVING CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT

Ian Kershaw's magisterial new history of Europe, 1914-1949,"To Hell and Back" reminds us that during the 40 year period from 1914 to 1945 Europe came close to "self-destruction" in two World Wars and an economic depression that cost over 50 million lives. 

Yet, defying centuries of internecine warfare and history, Europe came together in the second half of the 20th Century to form organizational constructs (NATO, ECM, etc.) that make the prospect of another war between the European nations inconceivable.Yes, tensions still exist: economically and socially. And will continue to. But the common interests were so clear and the bonds now so strong that war is not conceivable. 

Today, in the early years of the 21st Century, I believe our civilization faces a question not dissimilar to what was faced in the 20th Century: "will we allow civilization and the world as we know it and want it to be, to self-destruct?"

This may strike the reader as a needlessly draconian question. I do not think it is. 

What are the risks to our civilization as we know it? I believe there are three.

One is the threat of fundamentalist driven terrorism seeking to expand its reach across borders and annihilate "non-believers"  via a new caliphate. 

The second is the threat of nuclear disaster. Let us not allow the half century which separates us from the first hand ravage of the hydrogen bomb to disguise the annihilation to civilization which will result from atomic warfare. To our knowledge, we are the only celestial body with life as we know it. The possibility of our ending it is in our hands. 

The first and second threats are related for a dooms-day scenario is having a nuclear device in the hands of terrorists. 

The third threat, while less immediate is no less real: climate change which would cripple life as we know it on earth. 

It is clear that confronting and curtailing these threats will require Nations to work together as they have not before. Without trying to identify an exhaustive list, these Nations must include the United States, Russia, China, Western Europe, Japan,

Saudi Arabia, and  India.

There are those who will object to Russia and China being included, attributing to these Nations the intent to expand their geographic reach. The evidence that this is their intent is frail, defies what their leaders assert and what is in their own best interest.

Neither China or Russia are driven today by a Mission which seeks to convert other Nations to a given ideology (unlike Germany under the Nazis or ISIS today). Neither have a need for more land. Like the United States and Western Europe, they are threatened by ISIS. Yes, their values, their economic and judicial systems will not be identical to ours. Corruption may exist at higher levels. And they will look for good relations with neighboring countries just as we in the United States always have with countries near our own. 

But the commonalities of their interests--preserving peace and safety for their citizens, being treated with respect--will be far greater than the differences.

Just as world leaders following WW II had the wisdom to bring together organizational coalitions to normalize cooperation and the creation of stronger bonds so must the world leaders do that today.

With regard to Russia, we had the opportunity to create an organizational construct which would have bound its interests to those of the West post glasnost and perestroika in the early 1990's. We missed that opportunity. We have the opportunity again, confronted by the greatest threats we have had since that of Nazi Germany in the 20th Century.

Today's leaders will be judged by how well they seize this opportunity. I believe the future of civilization as we know it depends on it. 

John Pepper

 

THE HORROR OF FAILED STATES----REFLECTION ON THE HOLOCAUST

THE HORROR OF FAILED STATES

Timothy Schneider’s “Black Earth:  The Holocaust as History and Warning” follows his prize-winning book which covered much the same geographic and chronological ground:  “Bloodlands:  Europe between Hitler and Stalin.” 

Schneider’s thesis is that the Holocaust, at its worst, i.e., where the highest percentage of Jews were murdered, coincided with those geographical areas where the “state” had been demolished.  For Hitler, the destruction was intentional.  His purpose in moving into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and then the Soviet Union, was to obliterate these states; to act as if they never existed.  The Aryan race would move into these spaces, creating his new empire.

In annihilating the state, Nazis decapitated the leadership structure and elite from the top and the middle.  Because Jews, Schneider argues, constituted a large part of that leadership, they suffered  the greatest carnage.

Schneider doesn’t deny the anti-Semitism that permeated the areas which Germany, coming from the west, and the Soviet Union, coming from the east, pillaged.  I refer to Poland, Hungary, Austria, Romania and the Soviet Union. 

Schneider’s primary point is that it was the dissolution of the “state” which, despite the anti-Semitism had protected the Jews to a fair degree, that dramatically accelerated their decimation.  In fact, the percentage of Jews who were murdered was far higher in those countries where the state collapsed.  Poland is an example…compared, for example, to France and to Italy where, despite Nazi occupation, the state continued to have a sustaining framework.

Schneider develops his argument carefully, for example, comparing the relatively low rate of Jews being murdered in Sweden, where the government was intact, compared to Lithuania, where it was annihilated.

He further makes the point that the conditions which unleashed the greatest atrocities on the Jews were in areas which suffered two invasions; the first, the Soviet Union from the east, followed then by the Nazis from the west.

I believe this history has searing relevance to what we have seen occur over the past decade.  We are seeing that the failed state of Libya has unleashed tremendous internal carnage.  The failed state of Iraq, which our invasion precipitated, has resulted in far more deaths than occurred under the regime of Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein.   And what we’re seeing now in Syria follows the same pattern:  a failed state unleashing forces that have been held together, to some degree, by the rule of force and, yes, a dictatorial state government.

This perspective makes nonsense out of the advocacy to simply wipe out Assad and his government without having a transition government in place, as difficult as that will be to achieve.  It also shows that, with all its imperfections, the strong government that flowed in the Soviet Union and then Russia from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin; yes, with all the corruption involved, this represented a far better direction in terms of the well-being of the people than other alternatives that could have sent Russia into internecine chaos. 

If there is a risk in Timothy Schneider’s presentation, or at least an unspoken reality, it is the danger that exists in any nation, strong or failed, on the fueling of “we vs. them” attitudes toward people of different ethnicities and faiths that, in times of economic hardship and political uncertainty, when fear starts to brim for whatever reason, people will strike out against one another, sometimes in deadly fashion.  There is a risk in that right now in the U.S. in the irresponsible comments about Muslims being made by some of our political candidates, particularly Donald Trump.